DRDO has misused, manipulated and override the Flexible Complimenting Scheme (FCS) guide lines issued by DoPT, GOI. Above graph showing the failure of DRDO, DHRD, total mismanaged the manpower growth, because of dummy RAC bosses and also because of absolute power of Lab Directors.
OM No. AB-14017/36/2011-Estt(RR) dated 21st September 2012 – “FCS should be rigorous with due emphasis on evaluation of scientific and technical knowledge so that only scientists who have to their credit demonstrable achievements or higher level of technical merit are recommended for promotion.”
The FCS guidelines which are not following by DRDO
ANNEXURE-I
Criteria for Identifying Institutions/Organizations as Scientific & Technical Institutions and definition of Activities and Services, Scientists & Engineers and Scientific Posts
(i) The institutions referred to as S&T would be characterized by pursuit of excellence;
(ii) They should be engaged in research, design, development or programme implementation (including review, analysis, promotion and aspects of science policy, etc.) which would cover a broad spectrum of pure and applied research but the essential feature would be innovative character and spirit of enquiry that permeates their overall functioning;
(iii) The scientific culture is characterized by a few salient aspects, namely the persons involved are highly qualified and skilled technical personnel, involved in creative and innovative activity, they are willing to be judged on the basis of merit and competence rather than on the basis of seniority and a hierarchial structure;
(iv) The criteria could cover the aims and objectives of the institution/ organization, qualifications of the personnel, qualitative requirements for performance of various types of activities, etc.
Scientific Activities and Services:
Scientific activities and Services covered for considering the applicability of the Flexible Complementing Scheme are as under:
(a) Fundamental/basic research: Original investigation to gain new scientific knowledge, not necessarily directed towards any specific practical aim or application.
(b) Applied Research: Original investigation to gain new scientific or technical knowledge directed towards a specific practical aim or objective.
(c) Experimental Development: Use of scientific knowledge directed towards producing new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, processes, systems or services.
(d) S&T activities which are directly linked to R&D in terms of promoting the scientific activities and services.
Scientists and Engineers: Persons
(a) who possess academic qualification of atleast Master’s degree in Natural/Agricultural Sciences or Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering/Technology/Medicine; and
(b) working in those capacities, us or create scientific knowledge, and engineering and technological principles, i.e. persons with scientific or technological training who are engaged in professional work on S&T activities, high level administrators and personnel who plan, direct or coordinate the execution of S&T activities.
Scientific Post is the one, the incumbent of which is a ‘Scientist or Engineer’ defined above in a scientific institution/organization declared as ‘Scientific Department’ as defined and is engaged in the generation, advancement, dissemination, and application of scientific and technical knowledge in the S&T activities. ANNEXURE-II
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING PROMOTIONS UNDER FLEXIBLE COMPLEMENTING SCHEME
(a) All officers will be first screened on the basis of gradings in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for consideration for promotion; the ACRs should be assessed on a 10 point scale giving 10 marks for “outstanding”, 8 marks for “very good”, 6 marks for “good”, 4 marks for “average” and 0 for “poor” and only those officers who satisfy the minimum residency period linked to their performance as indicated in the table below be screened in.
Number of Year in grade 3 4 5 6 7 8
Scientist B to Scientist C 85% 80% 70% 65% 60% …
Scientist C to Scientist D … 85% 80% 75% 70% 60%
Scientist D to Scientist E … 85% 80% 75% 70% 60%
Scientist E to Scientist F … … 85% 80% 75% 70%
Scientist F to Scientist G … … 85% 80% 75% 70%
Exceptionally meritorious candidates with all outstanding gradings may be granted relaxation in the residency period, the relaxation being not more than one year on any single occasion. Such a relaxation will be limited to a maximum of two occasions in their entire career.
(b) As the procedure adopted for assessment of CRs in various Scientific Departments differ at present, it has been decided that an external member, from Departments of Atomic Energy, Space or DRDO who have developed over the years a fine tuned system of screening in meritorious Scientists may be co-opted in the selection process, till such time a system gets established in other Scientific Departments. The position will, however, be reviewed after 5 years from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum.
(c) All officers who are screened-in will be called for an interview. The performance in the interview will also be graded similarly on a 10 point scale and the eligibility for promotion will be based on the same norms as in the above Table.
(d) Field experience in research and development and/or experience in implementation of such scientific projects is compulsory for promotion of scientists recruited to the posts in the secretariat of the Scientific Ministries/Departments to higher grades under FCS. Field experience of atleast 2 years and 5 years respectively will be essential for promotion to Scientist F and Scientist G grades respectively. However, during the transitional period, Committee may relax this requirement in case of meritorious candidate
There are several examples of relaxation in residency period three or four times in entire service of scientists who are working as non technical and non scientific assignments and getting out standing calls.
- Scientist B Seniority Scenario, DRDO have no right to stop these scientist from 2003 to 2008 21 Scientists (oldest-15 Jan 1959 – 2 May 1986), if there is problem then the problem could not addressed by competent authority, it shows the failure of competent authority.
- Scientist C Seniority Scenario DRDO have no right to stop these scientist from 1994 to 2008 109 Scientists (oldest-1 June1959 – 14 April 1983), if there is problem then the problem could not addressed by competent authority; it shows the failure of competent authority
- Scientist D Seniority Scenario DRDO have no right to stop these scientist from 1993 to 2008 50 Scientists (oldest-30 July 1956 – 22Jan 1979), if there is problem then the problem could not addressed by competent authority; it shows the failure of competent authority
- Scientist E Seniority Scenario DRDO have no right to stop these scientist from 1993 to 2008 95 Scientists (oldest-1 November 1954 – 5 November 1974), if there is problem then the problem could not addressed by competent authority; it shows the failure of competent authority.
- Scientist F Seniority Scenario DRDO have no right to stop these scientist from 2001 to 2008 396 Scientists (oldest-16 May 1954 – 21 February 1971), if there is problem then the problem could not addressed by competent authority; it shows the failure of competent authority
- Scientist G Seniority Scenario DRDO have no right to stop these scientist from 2005 to 2008 58 Scientists (oldest-5 May 1954 – 6 January 1963), if there is problem then the problem could not addressed by competent authority; it shows the failure of competent authority.
It is observed that in the DRDO organization scientists who were deprived from normal promotion are not aware of the proper FCS guidelines and also not know how to get justice or leave to the GOD. Some scientists in DRDO tried their grievances through SA to RM or Defence Minister few got success but their success not known to other deprived scientists.
Can anyone believe that 729 deprived scientist are able to deliver their 100% output, this figure is approx 10% of total scientists of DRDO. 10 % unsatisfied work force is acceptable in any organization. Ab to jago Chander ji , apka contract to abhi pakka hai, teen saal to pure karne hain to kuch to DRDO ka bhala karte jao.
Recently one Scientist D from DRDE represented case to DG, DRDO that the APAR was tempered the given marks was 86 and tampered with whitener and put 80 marks, it is common practice in DRDO, how can a young scientist know about these heinous games by their superiors. Same things are also happening in DRTC also; when some official obtained APAR by RTI request this whitener game was exposed.
I request to these deprived scientists that they can ask their APARs by RTI request. APAR is very well in preview of RTI act, no exemption or schedule –II is applicable in this matter.
I am enclosing Honorable Nainital High court Judgment where anyone can ask assessment call, if his junior is called for assessment, please go through the judgment.
I am enclosing a representation of a scientist which was a successful example of fight for dignity.
In DRDO the scientists who were engaged in sundry works like stores procurement/ works/ security/ staff officer of establishment heads and able to lure boss by any means like putting AC’s in boss private house and support all domestic helps are the winner of outstanding APAR.
So overlook these kinds of officials and represent your case with scientific and technical contribution and serve our great country.
Nainital High Court Judgment WP No 263 dated 18th April 2003 Dr K K Jha Vs DRDO
Representation of a scientist
To
SA to RM, DG (R&D), DRDO
DRDO BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI – 110011.
(THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL
Sub: Assessment – 2013: Non Appearance of my name in the list of Scientists in the grade of Scientist ‘F’ from DRDL for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade.
Ref: RAC Letter No. RAC/08/35/ISC(Main)/2013, Dt 06th Mar 2013;
Fax Dt 11th April 2013 From Director, RAC to Director, DRDL
Sir,
Based on the recommendations of a Special Assessment Board, I was promoted from the grade of Scientist ‘E’ to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ in the Year 2008, though it should have been effective from 01st July 2007.
2. This contention apart, I have completed 5 years of residency period (2008 – 2012) in the grade of Scientist ‘F’. I was anticipating appearance of my name in the List of Scientists in the grade of Scientist ‘F’ from DRDL for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade in the Fax dated 11th April 2013, sent by Director, RAC, Delhi to Director, DRDL. However I was disappointed.
3. I would like to bring the following facts, related to my case, to your kind notice:
i) Non communication of ‘Below the Bench Mark’ (90%) grading in the Appraisal Year 2008. Since the said CPAR would have to be considered for assessing my suitability, the same is liable to be ignored in view of not communicating the ‘below bench mark’ CPAR.
ii) Further, the said CPAR (pertaining to the year 2008) grading carried out by I.O, R.O & Head of the Lab/Establishment by one Single Officer – all rolled into one, is not permissible as the very purpose of ensuring that the assessment of an officer is made dispassionately would be defeated. Thus, on this ground too, the said CPAR would have to be ignored as being illegal.
iii) Eligible criteria for Assessment for promotion of Scientist ‘F’ to Sc ‘G’ in terms of CPAR/APAR minimum average marks for residency periods of 5 years and more do not have statutory force as the same is not contained in the SRO. When the field is governed by a statutory rule, the executive instructions have to be subservient to the former.
4. Considering a minimum average mark of 85% as notional Bench Mark for consideration for promotion from Scientist ‘F’ to ‘G’ for a residency period of 5 years (Application of the criteria for consideration for promotion from Scientist ‘E’ to ‘F’), you are requested to ignore my CPAR pertaining to the Appraisal Year 2008 and include my name in the list of Scientists in the grade of Scientist ‘F’ in DRDL for consideration to the next higher grade and release the same at the earliest.
Awaiting a favorable response,
Thanking you,
Dear friends any help required, for RTI, for representation, any legal guidance/assistance need please write to – Prabhu Dandriyal – 21- Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun, 248008. Phone 0135-2787750, 09411114879, prabhudoon@gmail.com
